GiantsFan14 wrote:Cons:Seriously the did a blood transfusion with a dead guy and that's how they tricked everyone into thinking the scientist was dead? Seriously?Bane was hard to understand and had no direction.It made no sense why that chick wanted to blow up the city.Cool, Bane can snap a guys neck, we get it. He didn't have near the presence as the Joker (pool stick? pencil? yes plz.). For someone who is "pure evil" he sure didn't give off that vibe and it turns out he's just trying to blow up the city because he loves the chick. Super evil.Holy crap 99% preachy.lol at not turning the fusion reactor on because someone somewhere could use it as a bomb, pretty sure that goes for most forms of energy bro.There was absolutely no structure at parts, the movie just jumped from scene to scene and made no sense in the process.Look Batman is at home! Now he's standing randomly on a bridge! And now he's finally where he's supposed to be!Look Batman is in the desert! And now he's back in a locked down Gothem City a scene later despite the fact that he's completely broke!There was like a hour stretch where he wasn't even involved in the main plot (if you can really call it a plot) and like nothing happened. Like seriously nothing happened. So boring.He calculates that the bomb will decay in 5 months and sets the timer down to the second? impressive.We have a nuke about to go off in 2 minutes, let's listen to this chick talk for a bit before she dies, then make out a little and talk about our feelings before we finally do something about it. Brilliant.At the speed that silly flying tank was doing, there's no way he clears 6 miles in like 1 minute. That bomb would still have flattened the city.Holy crap it was long.

Pros:Ann Hathaway is holy crap hot.

That's why you didn't like it? Applying that same standard to TDK:

Where did this Joker come from? The police can't find any record of him, and we're given no background? Did he just materialize out at Arkham one day? NOT believable. And where did he get those scars? He tells 2 stories, are we to believe either of them? And his magic trick, while awesome, isn't realistic. How did he know some thug would come try and grab him instead of just shoot?Some guy with smiley scars can round up a bunch of skilled bank robbers and convince them to kill one another as they rob a mob bank? Which is only protected by a couple security guards and a manager with a shotgun? That seems implausible.In the opening scene, two guys break out a window in a skyscraper, shoot a line to a neighboring building and zip across completely unnoticed in broad daylight in a major metropolitan area. Wouldn't it have been easier to just climb the building they wanted to be on? Or take the elevator?A schoolbus backs into the bank at just the right moment, and is able to drive off into a passing line of buses again completely unnoticed and without a scratch on it? I just can't enjoy something that ridiculous. One could go on....

The last movie is by no measure any less "believable" than the first two. Haters gonna hate I guess.

Mookie4ever wrote:In previous movies the batmobile is some unstoppable juggernaut. In this movie three of them get destroyed in one scene.

This batcopter that can barely lift the bomb off the ground is able to move it at least 6 miles out to sea in under a minute? Everybody is cheering but won't the ocean winds bring the fallout right over the city and give them all excruciatingly painful deaths anyways?

How do I find an army of anarchists willing to give up their lives for...for... what exactly were they fighting for?

Did Wayne spend all of his company's money on developing an alternate clean energy source and then was unwilling to turn it on because it was too dangerous? What? Run that by me again.

Filmmaker made zero effort to make the story coherent or believable. I'm thinking that this movie sucked.

Shouldn't be surprised by the question-everything-mentality by Mook but I'm surprised you don't see the other sides to answer your questions.

1) The Batmobile in the first movie - its biggest competition was what? Regular cops in cars? In this one, we had the Bat and the motorcycle going up against them. Moreover, the drivers of the batmobile's probably weren't all that familiar with the car's potential due to inexperience.

2) Who said that some effects of the nuclear fallout didn't cause damage to Gotham and it's citizens?

3) Who comprised this army? From what I gathered, it was Bane's loyal men from the start of the movie + a bunch of prisoners. First, you're presupposing that all of them were made aware of Bane's ultimate plan - that the city was going to be blown up at some point. Two, of the ones that did know, is it that absurd to believe they weren't also martyrs, feared Bane or owed the man their lives for whatever reason? I feel this loyalty question was answered at the very start of the movie where Bane asked one of his men needed to stay behind in the plane crash so that all bodies would be accounted for. He did so with no problem with an obvious hint of a smile. Clearly, this man was doing the deed for some other reason than common logic.

4) Why not? Moguls have spent insane amounts of money on what they believe in. As far as not even turning it on, Wayne didn't have the stamina anymore to be responsible for its possible failure. It's the whole reason why he disappeared for 8 years.

5) Didn't you bring up suspension of disbelief in the movie thread? Tell me again why it doesn't apply to this work of fiction based on comic books?

Really surprised no one brought up the Chiropractor 101 issue. If chunk of vertebrae is sticking out, punch it back in, stand with support (for however long it takes) and then walk away one fine morning.

Really surprised no one brought up the Chiropractor 101 issue. If chunk of vertebrae is sticking out, punch it back in, stand with support (for however long it takes) and then walk away one fine morning.

RedHopeful wrote:Shouldn't be surprised by the question-everything-mentality by Mook

Yeah, don't know what you mean by that.I'm not questioning everything. I'm questioning the backlash against anyone who doesn't bow down to the brilliance of this movie. Rotten Tomatoes had to disable the comment section for this movie because fan-boys were threatening violence against any critic who did not give it a positive review.I like mindless fluff as much as the next guy and I will turn off my brain to enjoy Bruce Willis or Arnold in a good shoot em up. I much prefer intelligent films that give a damn about story and dialogue and this isn't one of them.I could go through each one of your comments point by point but this would devolve into tiring mweir-type (no offence, bygones) flamefest and I have neither the time or patience for it.

RedHopeful wrote:Shouldn't be surprised by the question-everything-mentality by Mook

Yeah, don't know what you mean by that.

Simply a jab at you being a lawyer.

Mookie4ever wrote:I'm not questioning everything. I'm questioning the backlash against anyone who doesn't bow down to the brilliance of this movie. Rotten Tomatoes had to disable the comment section for this movie because fan-boys were threatening violence against any critic who did not give it a positive review.

Yeah, not in favor of this either but I haven't gotten the vibe that is what's happening here at the Cafe. Haven't seen an Anti-GF member jump and scream about why this movie is the best thing since sliced bread.

Mookie4ever wrote:I like mindless fluff as much as the next guy and I will turn off my brain to enjoy Bruce Willis or Arnold in a good shoot em up. I much prefer intelligent films that give a damn about story and dialogue and this isn't one of them.

Agreed. We simply disagree about the overall intelligence of the movie. No biggie.

Mookie4ever wrote:I could go through each one of your comments point by point but this would devolve into tiring mweir-type (no offence, bygones) flamefest and I have neither the time or patience for it.

Totally agreed. Usually not a fan of breaking everything down but just felt the need to clarify for the casual observer that all your observations and questions aren't bulletproof.

Mookie4ever wrote:I'm questioning the backlash against anyone who doesn't bow down to the brilliance of this movie. Rotten Tomatoes had to disable the comment section for this movie because fan-boys were threatening violence against any critic who did not give it a positive review.

TheRock wrote:That's why you didn't like it? Applying that same standard to TDK:

Where did this Joker come from? The police can't find any record of him, and we're given no background? Did he just materialize out at Arkham one day? NOT believable. And where did he get those scars? He tells 2 stories, are we to believe either of them? And his magic trick, while awesome, isn't realistic. How did he know some thug would come try and grab him instead of just shoot?Some guy with smiley scars can round up a bunch of skilled bank robbers and convince them to kill one another as they rob a mob bank? Which is only protected by a couple security guards and a manager with a shotgun? That seems implausible.In the opening scene, two guys break out a window in a skyscraper, shoot a line to a neighboring building and zip across completely unnoticed in broad daylight in a major metropolitan area. Wouldn't it have been easier to just climb the building they wanted to be on? Or take the elevator?A schoolbus backs into the bank at just the right moment, and is able to drive off into a passing line of buses again completely unnoticed and without a scratch on it? I just can't enjoy something that ridiculous. One could go on....

The last movie is by no measure any less "believable" than the first two. Haters gonna hate I guess.

Most of those don't even make sense as issues let alone are comparable to the issues with TDKR. The ones that could be seen as issues don't create plot holes, hurt the structure of the movie, or impact character motivations. Mookie went over the differences in the other thread.

The Joker is crazy, and Heath Ledger's incredible acting makes his whole character believable. His entire motivation is pure desire for destruction and mayhem. You get the feeling that even he believes both stories about the scars. He does awesome "tricks" which go perfectly with his character. He's smart and manipulative. Nothing he does detracts from the overall structure and plot of the movie.

The Joker was just superior to Bane in every way.

About the rest of it, there is some suspension of belief required, mostly with the bus scene. Also the ferry boat scene at the end was kinda silly. But the overall structure, plot, characters, and motivation were just so good they didn't really seem like an issue.

GiantsFan14 wrote:He's smart and manipulative and somehow knew every possible outcome to every possible scenario and still managed to keep a million disposable henchmen around to help out for each situation as it unfolded. I'd love to see the cut scenes of all the henchmen sitting around for the scenarios that didn't unfold in their direction.

The Joker was just superior to Bane in every way except that he was actually less plausible than a well-connected terrorist from a fanatical organization who had control of a large nuke.

I love Ledger's Joker, but his ridiculous foresight is the largest leap of faith of any plot point in any of the three movies.

Bane and Raz are the most plausible bad guys. They have simple, logical motivations, and their organization is prime to supply the manpower and motivation for each of them.They actually make more sense.